| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Community
Forum: Chat Room
Thread: Contemporary Issues in Economics, Politics and Religion |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 306
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
1- Nationality, naturalization, is not a right, it is a PRIVILEGE ! Politicians mix between charity, which is a Christian religious (kind but naive) concept, and democratic right/duty/individualism. Yes, we are in agreement up to here. (I was particularly encouraged when I learned that GBs New Labour had encorporated this concept as an integral part of their fundamental political platform.) Then I am afraid that I lost your meaning. Would you care to restate items 1-3? This is not a new concept in British politics, it is just that New Labour have moved into the same ground as the Conservatives and we now have a consensus between the two main parties (though they wouldn't agree  ). Previously when this view was espoused by the Conservatives it was derided by Labour as racist. At the time it was rather crudely and clumsily summed up by Norman Tebbit AKA the Chingford Strangler as the 'Cricket Test' not to be confused with 'Test Cricket' ; the greatest form of the second greatest game, the greatest being Rugby which is not American Football without the armour  . This change highlights the fluidity of British politics, and that labels of Left and Right can no longer be applied to the two main parties as they have both become centrist. More appropriate labels have become Centralist (New Labour), De-centralist (Conservative), as these describe way in which near identical policies would be implmentented. This change also explains the reversal of positions of the two parties on the EU and the conservatives' drive to withdraw from the EPP-ED and to form a new grouping of Euro-skeptic/Euro-realist (pro Europe anti current EU) national parties. It is of note that the parties most interested in this new grouping are recent accessions to the EU: East European nations who have only in relatively recent time re-acquired democratic systems of government. ns. I want to take you up on the point of charity being a Christian concept, however once again we may have hit upon the problem of common parlance and the differing definitions of 'Charity' per se and 'Christian Charity' in particular. charity noun 1 leniency or tolerance to think badly of people or act. 2 generosity in giving to the needy. 3 an institution or fund for helping the needy 4 loving kindness towards others. Common parlenace in the UK, depending on context, is for 'charity' to mean definitions [2] and [3], which are concepts common to many faiths and cultures. Whereas the concept of 'Christian Charity' encompasses definitions [1], [2] and [4] and in the case of [1] the tolerance is unbounded. Again these concepts, save for the fact that 'Christian Charity' is driven by the teachings of Christ, are common to many faiths and cultures, some far older than Christianity, In the UK at least the state has been until recently little too free and easy with handing out citizenship, I say this even though my wife is a naturalized citizen. However there are many who have become citizens, as you rightly note, not because of any great desire to do so, nor to take part in the democratic system, but because citizenship is heavily tied up with the tax and benefits system. Take for example my family and that of my wife's cousin. A husband and wife with a two yearold child, who live and work in the UK. The only difference between the two is citizenship. My family gets allowances on the amount of tax it pays, receives benefits by dint of having a child and has access to healthcare free at the point of use. My wife's cousin's family gets none of this. As a result we pay less in tax and receive all the benefits, they pay more tax and get none. As a footnote: My wife's cousin's family came to the UK for fill vacancies in the Healthcare System at the behest fo the Government. However this was after New Labour came to power and as a result their visas strictly prohibit them from upgrading these visas from 'working' to 'residency' let alone attaining citizenship. As a result not only do they suffer the enquity of the tax and benefit system, but many other rights that we take for granted are curtailed simply because if they are not in employment they have to leave the country. [Edit 7 times, last edit by Former Member at Feb 5, 2006 1:26:25 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
[bb]This is not a new concept in British politics, it is just that New Labour have moved into the same ground as the Conservatives and we now have a consensus between the two main parties (though they wouldn't agree ). Previously when this view was espoused by the Conservatives it was derided by Labour as racist. At the time it was rather crudely and clumsily summed up by Norman Tebbit AKA the Chingford Strangler as the 'Cricket Test' not to be confused with 'Test Cricket' ; the greatest form of the second greatest game, the greatest being Rugby which is not American Football without the armour . I am a bit confused, bb. The concept I was referring to is defined by Wikipedia.org as: "New Labour (as a series of values) is often characterised as a belief in 'rights and duties', i.e. that a citizen should recognise that s/he possesses responsibilities linked with any legal rights they hold. The concept of a 'stakeholder society' is quite prominent in New Labour thinking." Your comments appear to be directed towards understanding the "rights and duties concept" vis-a-vis the immigration issue? Also, it is difficult to develop a good ideological picture of Tebbit (I am surprised he did not end up with the knickname "tidbit" ) apart from the fact that he was a Conservative and served as Secretary of State under Thatcher who was Euroskeptic; somewhat intolerant of unions and unemployed immigrants; but seemed to be pragmatic, of sound principles and straightforward in speech? You have to love his "Crickett Test."  [bb]This change highlights the fluidity of British politics, and that labels of Left and Right can no longer be applied to the two main parties as they have both become centrist. More appropriate labels have become Centralist (New Labour), De-centralist (Conservative), as these describe way in which near identical policies would be implmentented. This change also explains the reversal of positions of the two parties on the EU and the conservatives' drive to withdraw from the EPP-ED and to form a new grouping of Euro-skeptic/Euro-realist (pro Europe anti current EU) national parties. It is of note that the parties most interested in this new grouping are recent accessions to the EU: East European nations who have only in relatively recent time re-acquired democratic systems of government. De-centralist? Now there is a political oxymoron if I have ever heard one.  There still appears to me to be no specific defining issues that separate the 2 major parties apart from "tends to favour this or thats". Where can I read more about this new grouping and the basis for their support from the Eastern European democracies? Just when I thought I was getting a handle on this whole blasted EU contoversy.  . . . [bb]However there are many who have become citizens, as you rightly note, not because of any great desire to do so, nor to take part in the democratic system, but because citizenship is heavily tied up with the tax and benefits system. There is clearly a major immigration issue that is not being properly addressed in both of our countries. It may already too late to forestall serious otherwise preventable negative social and economic consequences.  . . . |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Your comments appear to be directed towards understanding the "rights and duties concept" vis-a-vis the immigration issue? Also, it is difficult to develop a good ideological picture of Tebbit (I am surprised he did not end up with the knickname "tidbit") apart from the fact that he was a Conservative and served as Secretary of State under Thatcher who was Euroskeptic; somewhat intolerant of unions and unemployed immigrants; but seemed to be pragmatic, of sound principles and straightforward in speech? You have to love his "Cricket Test." In answer to your question yes. One of the things that has come out of many race related incidents/issues is a lack of understanding amongst new citizens and prospective citizens of British culture, our political systems, what is considered acceptable behaviour and the ability to communicate in English even at the most basic of levels. A consensus view is that there should be compulsory education and examination of prospective citizens. In the satirical puppet-show Spitting Image Norman Tebbit was protrayed as a right wing thug, an SS officer and dracula. His nickname comes from his style of be exceedingly charming only to verbally strangle you or put the knife in. He remains resolutely right wing and has already laid into Cameron likening him to Chairman Mao and Pol Pot for the systematic destruction of Conservative party history nd values [bb]This change highlights the fluidity of British politics, and that labels of Left and Right can no longer be applied to the two main parties as they have both become centrist. More appropriate labels have become Centralist (New Labour), De-centralist (Conservative), as these describe way in which near identical policies would be implmentented. This change also explains the reversal of positions of the two parties on the EU and the conservatives' drive to withdraw from the EPP-ED and to form a new grouping of Euro-skeptic/Euro-realist (pro Europe anti current EU) national parties. It is of note that the parties most interested in this new grouping are recent accessions to the EU: East European nations who have only in relatively recent time re-acquired democratic systems of government. De-centralist? Now there is a political oxymoron if I have ever heard one. There still appears to me to be no specific defining issues that separate the 2 major parties apart from "tends to favour this or thats". Where the differences are appearing are in the the implementation of policies; the latest wheeze form labour is to reduce the number of police authorities, ambulance regions and fire service regions, in the name of greater efficiency and communication and thus give a better service (they have also managed to pull in anti-terrorism as a reason as well  ), the conservative view is the reverse; greater localisation to give a more focused and hence better service. Also under New Labour we have seen greater centralization of power, not directly but through the centralized setting of targets and measurements, and then tying funding to these targets. The conservatives are against this, on the grounds that centrally set targets tie the hands of organisations and force them to spend money on services which do not meet local need.These differences are at times subtle but are significant. Even Scottish and Welsh devolution though on the surface moved power out from the centre, reduced reduced local government by pulling it into the national parliaments. Also in local government, in the name of effciency we have the change from committee rule to inner cabinate rule. Where can I read more about this new grouping and the basis for their support from the Eastern European democracies? Just when I thought I was getting a handle on this whole blasted EU contoversy. The best I have found so far is on the bbc website. ............. [bb]However there are many who have become citizens, as you rightly note, not because of any great desire to do so, nor to take part in the democratic system, but because citizenship is heavily tied up with the tax and benefits system. There is clearly a major immigration issue that is not being properly addressed in both of our countries. It may already too late to forestall serious otherwise preventable negative social and economic consequences. We have had an immigration problem of sorts for many years, every government has to varying degrees attmepted to sort it out, but always end up ducking the more contraversial issues  |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
One of the things that has come out of many race related incidents/issues is a lack of understanding amongst new citizens and prospective citizens of British culture, our political systems, what is considered acceptable behaviour and the ability to communicate in English even at the most basic of levels. A consensus view is that there should be compulsory education and examination of prospective citizens. As both you and ns have pointed out on separate occasions, much of the problem is due to the pre-existing attitude, perspective, circumstances and expectations of the immigrants. If a nation establishes no reasonable criteria which are mutually beneficial to both the host society and the emigrants, then all the legislation in the world will not alter the natural course of events. The world we live in now is so radically different from what it was even 100 years ago that we must literally and immediately reengineer our laws and policies. Much of our current policies were designed for what should be thought of as a completely-different-world-in-time. It is painfully obvious that humanity is quite handicapped in recognizing that the world is evolving at a much faster rate of change then are our policies which were designed specifically to manage these changes. It is really quite alarming. This is where the differences are appearing in the implementation of policies; the latest wheeze form labour is to reduce the number of police authorities, ambulance regions and fire service regions, in the name of greater efficiency and communication and thus give a better service (they have also managed to pull in anti-terrorism as a reason as well ), the conservative view is the reverse; greater localisation to give a more focused and hence better service. Also under New Labour we have seen greater centralization of power, not directly but through the centralized setting of targets and measurements, and then tying funding to these targets. The conservatives are against this, on the grounds that centrally set targets tie the hands of organisations and force them to spend money on services which do not meet local need.These differences are at times subtle but are significant. Even Scottish and Welsh devolution though on the surface moved power out from the centre, reduced reduced local government by pulling it into the national parliaments. Also in local government, in the name of effciency we have the change from committee rule to inner cabinate rule.This is truly unfortunate. The merits of centralization or decentralization of government controls are being debated as if they were universal formulas which can be applied with equal success to every conceivable situation. Each model is best when employed to resolve specific issues which are known to have arisen under specific and appropriate circumstances. The concept of targets, measurements and incremental change was introduced by Demming just after WWII. Originally rejected by the US, his work was warmly embraced by the Japanese who have use this advantage to deal the US autombile industry a heavy blow. The subsequent use by governments is simply an attempt to introduce basic accountability into government. I can assure you, that without other necessary antecedant changes these measures do not have even a faint glimmer of a chance of succeeding. I am truly sorry for both of us. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
The concept of targets, measurements and incremental change was introduced by Demming just after WWII. Originally rejected by the US, his work was warmly embraced by the Japanese who have use this advantage to deal the US autombile industry a heavy blow. The subsequent use by governments is simply an attempt to introduce basic accountability into government. I can assure you, that without other necessary antecedant changes these measures do not have even a faint glimmer of a chance of succeeding. I am truly sorry for both of us. I grew up with Demming both in theory and practice, I even have qualifications in TQM , and what we have seen from New Labour is not Demming. Two cases in point, both from the NHS.Firstly, waiting lists: central targets have been set for the maximum time a patient should have to wait for an essential (as opposed to elective) operation, and if the health authoirty fails to meet the target it gets less money not more, thus you potentially end in a viscious circle. Also the targets as doctors and surgeons point out miss the issue of clinical need and that there have potentially been deaths because patients of lesser urgency have had to be operated on in order to meet the targets (and thus retain/gain funding), rather than waiting a little longer whilst the more urgent case is treated. I will agree that prior to New Labour's intervention that there were long waiting lists and that some less urgent cases had to wait a long lengths of time, and had operations cancelled and put back. But surgeons were working on a limited budget were prioritising treatment based on clinical need. Secondly, GP appointments: The government has set targets for patients to be able to get appointments on the day they request them, great. However there is now a mad free for all in the morning as everbody trys to ring in and make an appointment. There is a lack of continuity of care because you can nolonger make an appointment a week in advance eg you see a GP and are medicated. The GP says 'comeback in a week so that I can see how you are progressing', however you cannot make the advance appointment. At 8:00am on the day you are due to see your GP you hit the phone to make an appointment, in evitably what happens is that you waste an hour ringing the appointment line, eventually make an appointment but it will be with another GP in the practise bacause there are no more appointment slots available with your GP. With my GP, at least, prior to New Labours targets, you could make appointments upto a month in advance, and, as now, if there was an urgent need but no appointment available you could go at the end of surgury and wait for your turn in a queue and take pot luck on the doctor you saw. I know which system I and many others prefer. This is not Demming this is centralised control to meet simplistic, abitrary manifesto promises derived from focus groups. What you get is an appearance of improvement, whilst in actual fact things have got either no better or in fact even worse. [Edit 2 times, last edit by Former Member at Feb 6, 2006 9:22:16 AM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
[bb]This is not Demming this is centralised control to meet simplistic, abitrary manifesto promises derived from focus groups. What you get is an appearance of improvement, whilst in actual fact things have got either no better or in fact even worse. Yes, of course. It appears to me that we share the same fundamental viewpoint. My reference to Deming was intended to illustrate the basic model for continuous quality improvement with the Plan, Do, Study, Act paradigm (the famous Deming Wheel): systematic incremental improvement. There have been many "New Management" techniques introduced to improve organizational performance since then. Your references to the use of focus groups, bb, is just one such illustration. The fundamental paradigm that both parties are basing their proposals on is still basically: The use of incremental improvement to improve performance, based upon the results of (special interest) focus groups. We obviously share the same disdain regarding the use of focus groups (at least at this level of complexity). My question is even more fundamental: "Is incremental improvement an effective solution to the problems which are being addressed?" Even before this question can be answered it is necessary to ask if it is even possible to apply the principles of incremental performance to the problem under consideration. Without analyzing the system in detail there is no way to determine the specific obstacles that interfere with optimal performance. If you have not isolated the problems, you can not possibly measure them since you can not even define them. Notwithstanding, the incremental approach assumes that the problems can be corrected within the context of the current system without requiring any major overhaul of the system itself. As I have alluded to earlier, it is transparent to me that our current bureaucracy is based upon economic, legal, organizational and social assumptions that are severely outdated and are consequently largely ineffective in dealing with contemporary dynamics. I propose that many of our systems are in need of major reengineering, not only of the bureaucracies, but to the core social/economic structures which actually serve to define the society and provide it with the strategic vision necessary for sustainable long-term expansion. Regardless of my previously stated objections, it remains clear that unless each political party presents a comprehensive and accurate analysis of the current system along with their rhetoric (promises, not vision), they can not claim with any real authority that their proposed solutions will actually correct those specific issues which are responsible for the observed poor performance. Broad generalities and 'silver bullet' solutions may sound impressive in a speech, but in the business world which demands concrete results, not mere rhetoric, this is pure drivel.  On a personal note, I am curious to know if you have observed differences in the effectiveness of TQM in different cultures. My own experiences here in the US have led me to favour more of a strategically empowered high performance team based approach, which tends to result in action rather than discussion (focus group ineffectiveness).  Regards your comments about the problems associated with the national health care system, this is a topic that I have some experience with here in the US. Simply stated, as we move from a free market system to a socialized system we increase market inefficiencies. These inefficiencies are exaserbated by political decisions motivated by the enactment of policy decisions and the achievement of goals which are unrelated to both broader economic considerations as well as to the economic exigencies of the health care system itself. The lack of direct accountability at every level of care, especially between the individual health care recipient and the funding agencies, eliminates natural market demand restraints resulting in uncontrollable skyrocketing costs. Furthermore, socialism favours idealism and entitlement. The fundamental principles of economics are indifferent to wish fulfillment. When the State enacts a system with utopian goals (no matter how worthwhile) it had very well better have some very astute managers overseeing the process so that they may correct for the inevitable drain on resources caused by these artificially introduced inefficiencies. Frankly, at this time we are not even close.  [Edit 2 times, last edit by Former Member at Feb 6, 2006 3:38:23 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
"If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you ... "
----------------------------------------It is refreshing to see stories such as this to assure us that there are very real differences in national cultures, and not just individuals in the Muslim world. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4683894.stm It should come as no surprise that Lebanon is one of only 2 Muslim states which believe that Christians alone (aside from Muslims) are not condemned to hell by virtue of their beliefs. The other country is Syria which, however, appears to still be uncertain regarding the topic. Lebanon is also one of two ME countries which could potentially act as a bridge between Western and Muslim societies (the other being Jordan). If only there were a way to eliminate Syrias defacto control of the propaganda machine and the active fundamentalist paramilitary extremist factions operating freely within Lebanese borders.  [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Feb 6, 2006 9:01:55 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
"If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you ... " It is refreshing to see stories such as this to assure us that there are very real differences in national cultures, and not just individuals in the Muslim world. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4683894.stm What was even more refreshing, was what was shown on BBC News 24, was Muslim religious leaders at the front of the protestors attempting to stop the violence, they can be just made out on the vidio clip associated with the above link identifiable by the distinctive white and burgundy headdress and their black and burgundy robes. Edit: My error the coverage was on Channel 4 not BBC News 24 and the report can be seen here [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Feb 6, 2006 5:35:56 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
What was even more refreshing, was what was shown on BBC News 24, was Muslim religious leaders at the front of the protestors attempting to stop the violence, they can be just made out on the vidio clip associated with the above link identifiable by the distinctive white and burgundy headdress and their black and burgundy robes. The report can be seen here For some reason I could get the audio but not the video; which is fine. It appears that I will have sufficient opportunities in the future. Just think, if not for the persistent efforts of just one middle-aged Egyptian government official, this probably would never have happened. What? September's event becomes riot material in February. And that's not spontaneous? |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Are the "Cartoon Riots" justified according to Islam? You be the judge.
----------------------------------------"The Farewell Sermon," by the Prophet Muhammad, Peace be unto him, delivered before his death around 631: unedited. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Farewell_Sermon "O People, lend me an attentive ear, for I know not whether after this year, I shall ever be amongst you again. Therefore listen to what I am saying to you very carefully and take these words to those who could not be present here today. "O People, just as you regard this month, this day, this city as Sacred, so regard the life and property of every Muslim as a sacred trust. Return the goods entrusted to you to their rightful owners. Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. Remember that you will indeed meet your LORD, and that He will indeed reckon your deeds. God has forbidden you to take usury (interest), therefore all interest obligation shall henceforth be waived. Your capital, however, is yours to keep. You will neither inflict nor suffer any inequity. God has Judged that there shall be no interest and that all the interest due to Abbas ibn 'Abd'al Muttalib (Muhammad's uncle) shall henceforth be waived... "Beware of Satan, for the safety of your religion. He has lost all hope that he will ever be able to lead you astray in big things, so beware of following him in small things. "O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under God's trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with any one of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste. "O People, listen to me in earnest, worship God, say your five daily prayers (Salah), fast during the month of Ramadan, and give your wealth in Zakat. Perform Hajj if you can afford to. "All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves. "Remember, one day you will appear before God and answer your deeds. So beware, do not stray from the path of righteousness after I am gone. "O People, no prophet or apostle will come after me and no new faith will be born. Reason well, therefore, O People, and understand [these] words which I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the Qur'an and my example, the Sunnah [or Ahl al-bayt? or Qur'an only?] and if you follow these you will never go astray. "All those who listen to me shall pass on my words to others and those to others again; and may the last ones understand my words better than those who listen to me directly. Be my witness, O God, that I have conveyed your message to your people."  [Edit 5 times, last edit by Former Member at Feb 7, 2006 3:01:48 PM] |
||
|
|
|